another round of TERRIBLE POLITICAL CARTOONS

[Block]

Yeah. Of course westerners can go all high and mighty about "dem turrorists" over there but if their country is facing utter ruin due to that maybe they would think about walking a fine line too.

Turns out when you try to play both sides against the middle rather than making a concerted effort one way or the other, you tend to suffer for it. Your source also quotes anonymous Pakistani officials, and considering Musharraf himself goes on Pakistani national television and lies his ass off about subjects like the West perpetrating 9/11 and Bin Laden never having been in Pakistan, I'd expect the actual losses to be significantly lower.

[Tanasinn]

Strawman? You're the one who expressed incredulous hilarity at the thought that Pakistan might have sacrificed a lot to the incredibly ill-conceived western War on Terror, aren't you?

No, actually, I was pointing out that their government plays both sides of the conflict. Which is certainly an important part in understanding Pakistan's woeful role in the "war on terror." That Pakistanis end up dead fighting irregulars in contested territories while facing terrorist attacks themselves isn't really deniable.

[Hillary]

Yeah. Of course westerners can go all high and mighty about "dem turrorists" over there but if their country is facing utter ruin due to that maybe they would think about walking a fine line too.

Turns out when you try to play both sides against the middle rather than making a concerted effort one way or the other, you tend to suffer for it.

Wow, the fucking irony burns. Hasn't this more or less been US foreign policy for the past 50 years? The US is currently involved in two wars against enemies that it helped to arm in the first place.

You're either for us or against us, eh Block? Of course, allegiances may be switched at a moment's notice, but you have to be fully committed one way or the other, don't you?

[Thanas]

Yeah. Of course westerners can go all high and mighty about "dem turrorists" over there but if their country is facing utter ruin due to that maybe they would think about walking a fine line too.

Turns out when you try to play both sides against the middle rather than making a concerted effort one way or the other, you tend to suffer for it.

Are you just playing the stereotype of dumb american or what?

Your source also quotes anonymous Pakistani officials, and considering Musharraf himself goes on Pakistani national television and lies his ass off about subjects like the West perpetrating 9/11 and Bin Laden never having been in Pakistan, I'd expect the actual losses to be significantly lower.

Pakistani finance ministry = anonymous source in Block's world.

[SAMAS]

Yeah. Of course westerners can go all high and mighty about "dem turrorists" over there but if their country is facing utter ruin due to that maybe they would think about walking a fine line too.

Turns out when you try to play both sides against the middle rather than making a concerted effort one way or the other, you tend to suffer for it. Your source also quotes anonymous Pakistani officials, and considering Musharraf himself goes on Pakistani national television and lies his ass off about subjects like the West perpetrating 9/11 and Bin Laden never having been in Pakistan, I'd expect the actual losses to be significantly lower.

I thought it was less trying to play both sides, and more of a right-hand-vs-left-hand thing. Some of them are honestly trying to support the US, while others are supporting the Taliban for their own reasons.

Of course, in the end, the results are kind of the same.

[Block]

Yeah. Of course westerners can go all high and mighty about "dem turrorists" over there but if their country is facing utter ruin due to that maybe they would think about walking a fine line too.

Turns out when you try to play both sides against the middle rather than making a concerted effort one way or the other, you tend to suffer for it.

Wow, the fucking irony burns. Hasn't this more or less been US foreign policy for the past 50 years? The US is currently involved in two wars against enemies that it helped to arm in the first place.

You're either for us or against us, eh Block? Of course, allegiances may be switched at a moment's notice, but you have to be fully committed one way or the other, don't you?

Not even a little. US foreign policy for the last 50 years has been extremely consistent. Support stable, though often brutal, secular dictatorships/kingdoms. The war in Iraq is the exception and a glaring one, but it's pretty out of line with other actions taken. The Taliban, an originally Pakistani movement btw, was not in any way armed by the United states, neither were the fighters that formed the core of Al'Qaeda in Afghanistan, the warlords that we'd armed lost the civil war that occured after the Soviets pulled out. My point was that as usual Thanas is simplifying shit to evil Americans bad! While claiming that others are oversimplifying, and I find it very disingenuous.
As for you're either with us or against us, no that's not what I said, at all. Pakistan isn't attempting to remain neutral, that would be fine, they, or large elements within their government, are actively playing both sides, and it is costing them heavily.

[Block]

Yeah. Of course westerners can go all high and mighty about "dem turrorists" over there but if their country is facing utter ruin due to that maybe they would think about walking a fine line too.

Turns out when you try to play both sides against the middle rather than making a concerted effort one way or the other, you tend to suffer for it. Your source also quotes anonymous Pakistani officials, and considering Musharraf himself goes on Pakistani national television and lies his ass off about subjects like the West perpetrating 9/11 and Bin Laden never having been in Pakistan, I'd expect the actual losses to be significantly lower.

I thought it was less trying to play both sides, and more of a right-hand-vs-left-hand thing. Some of them are honestly trying to support the US, while others are supporting the Taliban for their own reasons.

Of course, in the end, the results are kind of the same.

Yes, that is part of it. The national government has almost no control over the ISI and significant parts of the military, and that's the source of a lot of the issue.

[Crateria]

CNN reporters are CLEARLY in bed with the terrorists!

[Thanas]

Not even a little. US foreign policy for the last 50 years has been extremely consistent. Support stable, though often brutal, secular dictatorships/kingdoms.

Just like Saudi Arabia, right?

[Block]

Not even a little. US foreign policy for the last 50 years has been extremely consistent. Support stable, though often brutal, secular dictatorships/kingdoms.

Just like Saudi Arabia, right?

Saudi Arabia is actually extremely secular as far as its Royal Family goes. That they use religion to manipulate the populace isn't particularly relevant.

[Crateria]

One of the dumbest political messages I've seen in a while.

[Lord Relvenous]

One of the dumbest political messages I've seen in a while.

...

What?

[Lord Zentei]

If I understand that correctly, they're putting those words in the mouth of the Unabomber (since he was an anarcho-primitivist and an opponent of industrial society). Thus, they're trying to suggest that believing in global warming makes you more like the Unabomber, and therefore, you shouldn't believe in global warming. Which is indeed pretty ridiculous.

[Thanas]

Saudi Arabia is actually extremely secular as far as its Royal Family goes. That they use religion to manipulate the populace isn't particularly relevant.

Yes, it is, considering the effects of that particular sect. Al-quida being just the most visible one.

[Simon_Jester]

Another reason it's relevant is that the Saudi monarchy probably won't last forever- and whatever replaces them is likely to be a product of the religious fundamentalists that the Saudis themselves created.

[weemadando]

That Unabomber Global Warming ad was part of a larger campaign which also featured Charles Mason, Fidel Castro and Osama Bin Laden in the same format.

Stay classy denialists.

[Crateria]

[Kuja]

"What is thy bidding, my master?"

I give that one a 1/10 on the basis that the sheer hilarity of that juxtaposition got a snort of amusement out of me.

[lance]

Who is obama kneeling to? At first I thought it was arab, then it looked russian, then sihk...

[Akhlut]

It's a famous picture of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban, drawn by someone who wasn't too keen on Islam.

[wautd]

Who is obama kneeling to? At first I thought it was arab, then it looked russian, then sihk...

It's a comic of the prophet Mohammed. You know, the one why every fundi retard went apeshit a couple of years ago.

[Pelranius]

What makes that cartoon particularly pathetic is that I believe that turban style is primarily worn by Sikh men.

[Dominus Atheos]

You do all realize that this picture is a joke, right? I mean FFS, it's Obama dressed as Darth Vader kneeling to a teleprompter with the prophet Muhammad on it.

It's a troll pic that mostly makes fun of right-wing anti-Obama memes.

[Crateria]

You do all realize that this picture is a joke, right? I mean FFS, it's Obama dressed as Darth Vader kneeling to a teleprompter with the prophet Muhammad on it.

It's a troll pic that mostly makes fun of right-wing anti-Obama memes.

Guess my troll pic senses need recalibrating...

In 1987 General Magnus Malan admitted for the first time that South African troops were in Angola to support Unita (the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), as well as to counter Swapo (the South-West African People's Organisation) and the ANC

First off, this was created was in 1987, more than a decade after South Africa invaded Angola. A bit late to make Malan threatening Angola or black Africa in general an actual revelation.

Second, maybe it's just me but Malan admitting that South Africa was in Angola in support of UNITA and to fight SWAPO and the ANC then turning him into King Kong beating his chest makes little sense. It has nothing at all to do with Malan admitting the invasion. Wouldn't making him into a figure glumly telling the truth instead of a warmongering ape make more sense? The only point towards the UNITA defense thing is how the UNITA soldier aims his gun and hides behind the behemoth. Even then it's not like UNITA was going to be defeated instantly or even in a few years if South Africa shut off support; a host of other factors helped to keep Savimbi in the fight after the Apartheid regime vanished.

Third, why are other southern African countries and RENAMO there? Why is he standing on the countries when only Angola and maybe Namibia are the central focus? Neither element is relevant to the description. All this makes me think that Zapiro can't remember the meaning of his own cartoon.

[LadyTevar]

Page 50 Lock